62229
Post by: Minx
 DarkLink wrote:You'll need to elaborate. You mean the oecd stats are incorrect, or falsified? Or that they've been misquoted? And what's your source for claiming the us has the higher mass shooting rate. I've seen a dozen different claims with as many different statistics and as many different criteria.
I don't know whether the oecd numbers are correct, although i would assume they are. They've been presented in a very misleading way though, to show some of the European countries ahead of the USA. Look for the length and start of the quoted time period and more importantly the very low number of incidents in the chosen time frame that leads to these inflated rates. For some of the Scandinavian countries the number of mass shootings is one in the chosen time frame and zero in nearly any other time frame. I wouldn't be comfortable comparing those highly time frame dependent numbers to other countries with much more frequent mass shootings.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 Kilkrazy wrote:It's good news for the gun industry when people go out to buy a new weapon after
Another call for "common sense gun control/safety" measures that would have done nothing to prevent the attack, but further erode the Second Amendment
sirlynchmob wrote:Another way to look at that is a bunch of scared and panicked people are buying guns. It's like the opposite of "responsible gun owners".
And you are going to give us examples of these "scared and panicked people" handling a firearm in a manner that it irresponsible?
sirlynchmob wrote: People so scared of the people around them you can safely assume a good portion of them have mental health issues that should prevent them from having a gun.
Mental health issues precludes you from lawfully owning a firearm. Anyone with a passing familiarity with the firearms laws in the US should be aware of this, or anyone paying attention to this thread as it has been mentioned on more than one occasion.
sirlynchmob wrote:so when someone in this black friday group commits a mass shooting we can all go "see he bought the guns legally" thus proving the leftists control freaks waving the banner of 'Common Sense Gun Control' correct.
a bunch of scared, panicked and terrorized people buying guns, what could possible go wrong? 
I'm sure with this increase in gun ownership america will finally have enough guns to be the safest country in the world.
Like the common sense gun control in California that is the benchmark across the nation? The same "common sense" gun control that did not stop the straw purchase and the subsequent illegal modification of two of the firearms used?
What common sense gun control measures would you like to see implemented that would have prevented this attack, or are you just going to rely on smearing people who's choices you disagree with? Automatically Appended Next Post: The FBI has now changed their opinion of when the radicalization took place.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35055104
The couple behind the San Bernardino attack that killed 14 people were radicalised before they started dating, the director of the FBI has said.
James Comey said Tashfeen Malik and husband Syed Farook spoke of jihad and martyrdom during conversations on an online dating service in late 2013.
The FBI believes the duo were inspired by foreign terrorist organisations, but said the investigation is ongoing.
Last week's massacre was the deadliest terrorist attack in the US since 9/11.
The couple were both killed in a shoot-out with police hours after the attack.
Speaking during a Senate hearing in Washington, Mr Comey characterised the couple as "homegrown violent extremists", and said that precise nature of the foreign influence is still under investigation.
Mr Comey made the revelations during testimony on Capitol Hill
Earlier this week, another FBI official said that there was no evidence uncovered so far to suggest the attack was plotted overseas.
Mr Comey said the investigation "indicates that they were actually radicalised before they started courting or dating each other online, and noted discussions they had about jihad before their engagement last year. Malik moved to the US in July 2014 on a visa designed for fiances, and married Farook - a US national - a month later.
The BBC's Jane O'Brien in Washington says the revelation is significant, as it contradicts earlier suggestions that Malik may have radicalised her husband.
More than dozen people were killed in the San Bernardino attack
Meanwhile, the investigation has broadened to examine anybody who may have been "involved with assisting them, with supporting them, with equipping them," the director said.
Over the weekend, police raided the home of Enrique Marquez, a long-time friend and distant relative of Farook who purchased the two large weapons used during the rampage.
Mr Marquez is being questioned by federal investigators. Media reports say that authorities had trouble finding him after the attack, but later found that he had checked into a mental health facility.
Mr Comey was also chided for not securing the couple's home, which allowed journalists to enter and produce reports from inside. The ethics of that reporting was widely debated.
The transfer of the weapons was illegal as it did not have a background check per California law. It will be interesting to see if Mr Marquez has a history of mental illness.
And it appears that this has not been the first plot from this pair, a previous plot was discussed in 2012
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html
(CNN)What happened to transform a trained pharmacist and a county health inspector into terrorists, and when did they take that dark turn?
Officials say it could have been years before last week's deadly attack in San Bernardino, California.
Investigators believe shooter Syed Rizwan Farook may have been plotting an earlier attack in California with someone else, two U.S. officials told CNN on Tuesday. One of the officials said the two conspired in 2012 and a specific target was considered. The pair "got spooked" and decided not to go through with the earlier attack after a round of terror-related arrests in the area, an official said.
And sources also told CNN that investigators believe Tashfeen Malik, Farook's wife and the other shooter who opened fire Wednesday, was radicalized at least two years ago.
Investigators are still trying to piece together profiles of the couple who killed 14 people and died in a gunbattle with police last week. They're also working to pinpoint whether anyone in the United States or abroad helped finance and shape the plot.
Farook took out a bank loan for $28,500 in November, multiple law enforcement officials told CNN on Tuesday.
About half the money was given to Farook's mother in the last couple of weeks, one official said, and some of it was spent on household items.
Investigators have accounted for all the money and do not believe any of it was provided to the killers by any outside entity backing the plot, according to one of the sources. Because of that, the officials said the loan is not considered of significant investigative value at this stage.
But one expert told CNN the loan could be another sign that Farook had been preparing for the attack.
"What it indicates is he was financing this operation or his life or his afterlife for his child and mother, using what is now wire fraud and bank fraud, so it's just two more additional charges that the FBI will be looking at," said Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
 Dreadclaw69 wrote:or are you just going to rely on smearing people who's choices you disagree with?
This one 
All we can do is continue to educate, and seek viable proposals that would actually cause meaningful change while still respecting our Constitutionally-protected rights.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And you are going to give us examples of these "scared and panicked people" handling a firearm in a manner that it irresponsible?
here's what happens when a good guy with a gun tries to be helpful:
http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/Woman-Who-Shot-At-Shoplifters-Gets-Probation--361241471.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WILX_News_10
http://deadstate.org/good-guy-with-a-gun-tries-to-stop-carjacking-shoots-victim-in-the-head-instead-and-bails/
oh and I forgot, who was the guy at a school shooting they interviewed? He had a gun, he was nearby, but refused to do anything to help because he was worried the cops would think he was the shooter.
the usual victims:
http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-statistics/
and won't somebody think of the children:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/25/death-child-unintentional-shooting/11324717/
49806
Post by: yellowfever
Hey lynchmob why do you care so much about America's gun laws. If you don't live in America it's none of your concern or business. If you do live in America just move to the commie coast or New York.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
So you didn't show people who were scared and/or panicked, and you quoted an organization that has worked with the Brady Campaign to pass stricter gun control laws. Just to round out your collection of biased links you also include an article from USA Today based on research by the widely discredited Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action who fudged the statistics to get a figure 61% higher than the CDC. The only biased source you excluded was Shooting Tracker that counts people shot with BB guns in their "mass shooting" statistics (and conveniently use their own definition that is at odds with every other commonly accepted one).
You can pick out the isolated incidents but the fact of the matter is that while gun ownership continues to rise the rate of accidental deaths is at an all time low.
Source; CDC
Source; FBI
Here are some examples of defensive gun since the start of December;
http://www.newschannel5.com/news/victims-in-robbery-set-up-turn-tables-on-gunman
http://www.bigcountryhomepage.com/news/burglar-shot-by-odessa-homeowner
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/police-robbery-suspect-fatally-shot-in-store/36846222
http://6abc.com/news/club-worker-questioned-after-shooting-in-south-philadelphia/1112431/
http://www.khou.com/story/news/crime/2015/12/06/alleged-attempted-robbery-suspect-found-shot-to-death-in-street/76880000/
http://www.abqjournal.com/686851/news/auto-burglary-may-have-resulted-in-gunfight-police-say.html
http://www.kivitv.com/news/police-intruder-shot-and-killed-by-homeowner
In raw numbers it is commonly accepted that there are between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year by law abiding Americans,
I'll ask you again; What common sense gun control measures would you like to see implemented that would have prevented this attack?
33125
Post by: Seaward
Sometimes.
Sometimes it works.
121
Post by: Relapse
This right here. To tell the truth, as I've said before, I laugh at the hypocracy of the media in the way they come down on gun violence, churning out reports of admittedly horrific incidents and giving plenty of air time to anti gun activists. All the while, they never say a word about the fact almost nine times more people die from alcohol related causes per year than gun homicides and, in fact, glorify it's consumption through advertising and other means.
47598
Post by: motyak
Telling a user to not take part in a discussion because they have the wrong flag by their name is NOT constructive, it is in fact spammy if that is the entirety of your post. It is also NOT polite. Therefore it is NOT allowed. This should be common sense, and has been made clear in numerous ot threads
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
so you have to go back to 1997 to find 10 examples? while since then over 500,000 men, women and children have died from guns. let's not forget those 355 law abiding citizens turning into mass murders just this year.
clearly the good guy with a gun is a bigger myth than santa claus.
@Dreadclaw69 between 1 million and 2.5 million? those are some horrible stats. what's the margin of error? 1 million? But I suppose if you count all the crimes the police stop you'd get in the ballpark. in the end it's almost always the cops who get the bad guys, save for 10 cases in over 18 years.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
sirlynchmob wrote:
so you have to go back to 1997 to find 10 examples? while since then over 500,000 men, women and children have died from guns. let's not forget those 355 law abiding citizens turning into mass murders just this year.
clearly the good guy with a gun is a bigger myth than santa claus.
@Dreadclaw69 between 1 million and 2.5 million? those are some horrible stats. what's the margin of error? 1 million? But I suppose if you count all the crimes the police stop you'd get in the ballpark. in the end it's almost always the cops who get the bad guys, save for 10 cases in over 18 years.
The 355 statistic is for mass shootings, not mass murders.
121
Post by: Relapse
sirlynchmob wrote:
so you have to go back to 1997 to find 10 examples? while since then over 500,000 men, women and children have died from guns. let's not forget those 355 law abiding citizens turning into mass murders just this year.
clearly the good guy with a gun is a bigger myth than santa claus.
@Dreadclaw69 between 1 million and 2.5 million? those are some horrible stats. what's the margin of error? 1 million? But I suppose if you count all the crimes the police stop you'd get in the ballpark. in the end it's almost always the cops who get the bad guys, save for 10 cases in over 18 years.
Figuring at least 88,000 people a year died from alcohol in the same time frame what does that put the casualty count at? Going from your time frame of 1997we have 1,584,000 people dead of alcohol related causes. Even shaving a quarter of that number for arguments sake still leaves an appalling number killed.
If we average 11, 000 a year killed by drunk drivers since 1997, in other words, people that would have as little warning or control of the situation as if it were a shooter, it comes to 198,000 dead.
The media and political hypocrisy over this is incredible. But most of these people like to drink, so nothing will ever be done, and alcohol will continue to be glorified as compared to spreading fears about gun violence even though alcohol kills far more people annually.
1464
Post by: Breotan
So, what to do about gun control when terrorists didn't obey the laws already in place? Federal laws, apparently. Oh, wait. Weren't Federal laws broken, too? O.o
PJMedia wrote:Pelosi: California Gun Laws Didn't Stop Terrorists, So 'That's Why We Need a National Gun Law'
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged that even with her home state's strict gun laws the San Bernardino terrorists got their weapons, but argued that's reason to expand the statutes federally nonetheless.
Pelosi was asked on PBS about the fact that the guns used in last week's massacre at a county Christmas party were legally purchased in California, which "has one of the tougher gun control laws in the country."
"Well, it is. And the fact is that's why we need a national gun law so that there is no thought that even though one state may have good laws you can buy guns in another place. These, as you said, were bought in California," Pelosi said.
"But the bigger issue is as follows. Overwhelmingly, the American people support sensible background check legislation, expanding the Brady Bill to include online purchases, straw purchases, I can't qualify, you can, you buy it and you sell it to me, and gun shows."
She added that "the most egregious and the one the American people understand clearly" among pending gun legislation "is that if you are on the FBI no-fly watch list, it doesn't disqualify you or prevent you from buying a gun."
"And the NRA does not allow this Congress to take a vote on that. The NRA on a no-fly, FBI watch list. So on both of those bills it's about the NRA intervening when in fact the American people should call the shots."
Pelosi said she doesn't know what Republican support in Congress might exist for an assault weapons ban, but "the assault weapons are bad things."
"Senator [Dianne] Feinstein has been the champion on this issue. But I think that if you look at not the high profile shootings which are terrible and break our hearts and challenge our conscience, but look at the fact that every night many people are killed throughout our country, most of them not with an assault weapon," she continued. "So if you're going to reduce gun violence in our country, the background check has much more reach than assault weapon ban -- although my colleagues may introduce an assault weapon ban this week as well."
On Campaign 2016, Pelosi predicted that a Donald Trump nomination "would maximize our members of Congress."
"But nonetheless, having said that, it's up to the Republicans to choose their nominee," she added. "We have three great candidates. Any one of them would walk into that Oval Office with all the values of our country, we would be very proud of them whoever she may be."
So, once again, she spouts the same old party line about gun control but doesn't propose a single thing that could possibly make a difference in a situation like this.
33125
Post by: Seaward
sirlynchmob wrote:
so you have to go back to 1997 to find 10 examples? while since then over 500,000 men, women and children have died from guns. let's not forget those 355 law abiding citizens turning into mass murders just this year.
clearly the good guy with a gun is a bigger myth than santa claus.
Most people in America don't own a gun.
Most gun owners in America don't have a CCL.
Most CCL holders don't actually concealed carry.
Having an armed bystander at the site of a mass shooting when it starts is going to be only slightly less rare than having a unicorn there.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
sirlynchmob wrote:@Dreadclaw69 between 1 million and 2.5 million? those are some horrible stats. what's the margin of error? 1 million? But I suppose if you count all the crimes the police stop you'd get in the ballpark. in the end it's almost always the cops who get the bad guys, save for 10 cases in over 18 years.
The study was carried out by Kleck and Gertz. This is what one gun control advocate had to say about it;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
Criminologist Marvin Wolfgang, who described himself "as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country" and whose opinion of guns was "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people" defended Kleck's methodology, saying "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator". He went on to say that the NCVS survey did not contradict the Kleck study and that "I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
Even if we take the absolute lowest estimate of defensive gun uses by citizens it is still well above the number of deaths due to firearms.
And defensive gun uses typically exclude police from their numbers, so your comment that citizens do not stop crime is wholly incorrect. You can continue to claim that " it's almost always the cops who get the bad guys", but the overwhelming number of incidents were citizens use firearms to defend themselves can only be ignored if you are willfully blind to their existence.
Now, will you answer the question; What common sense gun control measures would you like to see implemented that would have prevented this attack?
And before I forget your claim that there has been 355 mass shootings is wholly incorrect, and comes from Shooting Tracker. As mentioned previously their definition is wholly at odds with any accepted definition, and includes incidents were children were playing with BB guns and hit each other. The people behind Shooting Tracker would have you believe that kids playing with pellet guns is as serious an incident as Sandy Hook. Even Mother Jones walked back this claim after they published it, saying the total in 2015 was 4, or 1.12% of the actual incidents claimed.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Now, will you answer the question; What common sense gun control measures would you like to see implemented that would have prevented this attack?
I admire your determination Dreadclaw. Unfortunately anti-gun advocates tend to not actually propose any meaningful solutions that are Constitutionally viable. If they suggest anything at all, it's the same old gak that does nothing but violate the rights of the law-abiding.
Look at our President's latest speech. In one breath he advocates that we shouldn't paint a broad brush over Islam and that all Muslims are not terrorists (which is true, and people need to realize this), but in the next breath he wants to gak all over the rights of all American gun owners just because of the actions of a tiny percentage of madmen. The hypocrisy is astounding.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 Alex C wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Now, will you answer the question; What common sense gun control measures would you like to see implemented that would have prevented this attack?
I admire your determination Dreadclaw. Unfortunately anti-gun advocates tend to not actually propose any meaningful solutions that are Constitutionally viable. If they suggest anything at all, it's the same old gak that does nothing but violate the rights of the law-abiding.
Look at our President's latest speech. In one breath he advocates that we shouldn't paint a broad brush over Islam and that all Muslims are not terrorists (which is true, and people need to realize this), but in the next breath he wants to gak all over the rights of all American gun owners just because of the actions of a tiny percentage of madmen. The hypocrisy is astounding.
I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, and that most people want to act or discuss a topic in good faith. I am giving him that opportunity. Anyone can tell me what they are against, I want to hear what he is for.
As our President said earlier this week from the Oval Office, freedom is more powerful than fear. So that is why he would like to strip people of their fundamental freedoms and right to due process.
121
Post by: Relapse
Alex C wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Now, will you answer the question; What common sense gun control measures would you like to see implemented that would have prevented this attack?
I admire your determination Dreadclaw. Unfortunately anti-gun advocates tend to not actually propose any meaningful solutions that are Constitutionally viable. If they suggest anything at all, it's the same old gak that does nothing but violate the rights of the law-abiding.
Look at our President's latest speech. In one breath he advocates that we shouldn't paint a broad brush over Islam and that all Muslims are not terrorists (which is true, and people need to realize this), but in the next breath he wants to gak all over the rights of all American gun owners just because of the actions of a tiny percentage of madmen. The hypocrisy is astounding.
That's true of much of the anti gun crowd.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Much of the difficulty with the "sensible gun control" is the limited knowledge of what is already in place legally.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
 Frazzled wrote:Much of the difficulty with the "sensible gun control" is the limited knowledge of what is already in place legally.
Indeed, as well as the limited knowledge of exactly what it is they want to ban.
bs terminology from the anti-gun politicians like "high-powered assault rifles with a 30 magazine clip and a shoulder thing that goes up" just highlight the level of ignorance about the very things they want to ban. It's like they don't even know what they want to ban, but "something must be done", so they just try to parrot what other ignorant people have said before in order to pander to their supporters and get (re)elected.
The levels of restriction already in place in CA are among the highest in the nation (along with such violence-free utopias as Chicago, New York City and D.C.) and yet still they harp on about wanting to feth over everyone's rights, often calling for the very same restrictions that were already law there. In addition, you get the lies about the "gun show loophole" and "internet sales" that they probably couldn't explain if they were asked, but again, it "sounds good" and makes their audience happy so they parrot away the same old gak time after time without actually comprehending what actual law is already in place or offering viable solutions themselves.
Gun owners are disgusted at these shootings too. It's not like we revel in the violence. We don't have wet dreams about getting to shoot people. But for some reason it's becoming socially acceptable to lump us all into the same type of crowd as these psychopaths, treating us as guilty of something first and having to prove that we are not of their ilk in order to exercise what are supposed to be Constitutionally-protected rights. I'm not a psychopath, or a murderer, or a terrorist, so why am I viewed as such simply for wanting to own the most effective tool available to protect myself and my family?
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
This morning, XM radio was alight with stupidity. On NPR we had an editor for MotherJones lying through his teeth about how people use "automatic weapons" in mass shootings. On literally the next station, we had a Muslim radio host running damage control for Islam's public image.
Sometimes I wonder if leftists aren't actively conspiring to destroy this country.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 NuggzTheNinja wrote:This morning, XM radio was alight with stupidity. On NPR we had an editor for MotherJones lying through his teeth about how people use "automatic weapons" in mass shootings. On literally the next station, we had a Muslim radio host running damage control for Islam's public image.
Sometimes I wonder if leftists aren't actively conspiring to destroy this country.
Actively? No, but they're too blind to see the damage their "its for your own good!" ideology will/is causing.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
 Grey Templar wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:This morning, XM radio was alight with stupidity. On NPR we had an editor for MotherJones lying through his teeth about how people use "automatic weapons" in mass shootings. On literally the next station, we had a Muslim radio host running damage control for Islam's public image.
Sometimes I wonder if leftists aren't actively conspiring to destroy this country.
Actively? No, but they're too blind to see the damage their "its for your own good!" ideology will/is causing.
The reason I say "I wonder" is because I don't think I could engineer an ideology more destructive to the future of our nation if I tried.
Their ideas literally require the complete suspension of logic in attributing blame. When a Confederacy-loving Christian lunatic kills Americans, they rightly blame the ideology. When an Islamic terrorist cell kills Americans, they blame everything BUT the ideology.
443
Post by: skyth
The ideology is blamed. It just isn't allowed to say all of Islam is responsible...Same as you don't blame all of Christians for the Christian terrorists.
We really need to go back to the 'Well regulated' part of the 2nd Amendment.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
 skyth wrote:
We really need to go back to the 'Well regulated' part of the 2nd Amendment.
Yup, give me access to military grade hardware please.
You do know what that part means, right?
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
skyth wrote:The ideology is blamed. It just isn't allowed to say all of Islam is responsible...Same as you don't blame all of Christians for the Christian terrorists.
We really need to go back to the 'Well regulated' part of the 2nd Amendment.
Are ALL people who fly the Confederate flag mass murderers? Because the leftists where quick to "ban" the Confederate flag.
443
Post by: skyth
Flying the Confederate flag has a very strong correlation for being a racist. That is the attitude that emboldens people to engage in terrorism against African American.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
NuggzTheNinja wrote: skyth wrote:The ideology is blamed. It just isn't allowed to say all of Islam is responsible...Same as you don't blame all of Christians for the Christian terrorists.
We really need to go back to the 'Well regulated' part of the 2nd Amendment.
Are ALL people who fly the Confederate flag mass murderers? Because the leftists where quick to "ban" the Confederate flag.
No, but the confederate flag was and is a symbol of hatred and bigotry. Would you be okay with public buildings flying the flag of the Third Reich? The confederate flag stood for much of the same values, such as the superiority of one race over others.
So why should such a flag be allowed to be flown over public buildings, which are owned and paid for by the people, in a country where it was written into its very founding that all men are created equal?
443
Post by: skyth
That it is constitutional to regulate gun owners.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
skyth wrote:
That it is constitutional to regulate gun owners.
Incorrect.
"Well regulated" in the verbage of the time meant "well equipped and trained". Because the founders believed that a well equipped and trained militia (which is composed of most of the adult population) was necessary to keep a country free, they installed the second amendment to ensure the government could not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The founders recognised that the right is inherent to all people, it is not something that is granted to anyone. The second amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, we already have it. What it is supposed to do is stop the government from taking the right away from us.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Alex C wrote: skyth wrote: We really need to go back to the 'Well regulated' part of the 2nd Amendment.
Yup, give me access to military grade hardware please. You do know what that part means, right?
Does the Army have any BARs or Tommy Guns in storage? Automatically Appended Next Post: skyth wrote:Flying the Confederate flag has a very strong correlation for being a racist. That is the attitude that emboldens people to engage in terrorism against African American.
Using the same argument, once could call for the banning of Muslim symbols as well.  Fortunately the third way, the American way, is to ban neither and let the ideas fight it out. I'm all for scheduling cage matches between KKK members and Pomona Crips though.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Frazzled wrote: Alex C wrote: skyth wrote:
We really need to go back to the 'Well regulated' part of the 2nd Amendment.
Yup, give me access to military grade hardware please.
You do know what that part means, right?
Does the Army have any BARs or Tommy Guns in storage?
Even if they did it would require the repeal of multiple existing laws that infringe on our rights, as well as the willingness of the army to sell the surplus, for us to get access to them.
If that miracle occurred I would love to have one of each
221
Post by: Frazzled
So why should such a flag be allowed to be flown over public buildings, which are owned and paid for by the people, in a country where it was written into its very founding that all men are created equal?
Indeed.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Alex C wrote:
The second amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, we already have it. What it is supposed to do is stop the government from taking the right away from us.
Yeah, I gotta disagree with you on that point. Ownership of weaponry is not a natural right, it is a civil right, and has been treated as such. It is a right given to you by the government, just like speech, religion, ect. That's why it's called a civil right. To argue that you are somehow naturally entitled to weaponry is beyond ridiculous.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Alex C wrote: Frazzled wrote: Alex C wrote: skyth wrote:
We really need to go back to the 'Well regulated' part of the 2nd Amendment.
Yup, give me access to military grade hardware please.
You do know what that part means, right?
Does the Army have any BARs or Tommy Guns in storage?
Even if they did it would require the repeal of multiple existing laws that infringe on our rights, as well as the willingness of the army to sell the surplus, for us to get access to them.
If that miracle occurred I would love to have one of each
Well if we're going the militia route, I'm volunteering for the Tommy Gun. You youngins can have your M4.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
skyth wrote:Flying the Confederate flag has a very strong correlation for being a racist. That is the attitude that emboldens people to engage in terrorism against African American.
Really? Prove that.
Also, you could make the exact same argument about Islam as an ideology that emboldens people to engage in terrorism.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Co'tor Shas wrote: Alex C wrote:
The second amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, we already have it. What it is supposed to do is stop the government from taking the right away from us.
Yeah, I gotta disagree with you on that point. Ownership of weaponry is not a natural right, it is a civil right, and has been treated as such. It is a right given to you by the government, just like speech, religion, ect. That's why it's called a civil right. To argue that you are somehow naturally entitled to weaponry is beyond ridiculous.
You have a severely incorrect view of rights as viewed under the Constitution. Government gives us NOTHING. We only permit the government to have certain powers.
read the Constitution itself. Its right there.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
Co'tor Shas wrote: Alex C wrote:
The second amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, we already have it. What it is supposed to do is stop the government from taking the right away from us.
Yeah, I gotta disagree with you on that point. Ownership of weaponry is not a natural right, it is a civil right, and has been treated as such. It is a right given to you by the government, just like speech, religion, ect. That's why it's called a civil right. To argue that you are somehow naturally entitled to weaponry is beyond ridiculous.
The founders of our nation recognised that people are born with these rights, they are not granted by anyone but our creator (should you believe in such a thing, but that's how it's phrased). The entire bill of rights is there to tell the government what it cannot do, to protect the people's rights from being oppressed.
But continue to talk complete bollocks if you must, I won't entertain your stupidity any longer.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Alex C wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote: Alex C wrote:
The second amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, we already have it. What it is supposed to do is stop the government from taking the right away from us.
Yeah, I gotta disagree with you on that point. Ownership of weaponry is not a natural right, it is a civil right, and has been treated as such. It is a right given to you by the government, just like speech, religion, ect. That's why it's called a civil right. To argue that you are somehow naturally entitled to weaponry is beyond ridiculous.
The founders of our nation recognised that people are born with these rights, they are not granted by anyone but our creator (should you believe in such a thing, but that's how it's phrased). The entire bill of rights is there to tell the government what it cannot do, to protect the people's rights from being oppressed.
But continue to talk complete bollocks if you must, I won't entertain your stupidity any longer.
I don't disagree that it tells the government what it can't do, but you misunderstand the difference between civil and natural rights.
The right to weaponry (bear arms) is a civil or legal right. They are designed to protect citizens from the government infringing apon them. They require laws, rules ect. And they can, in fact, be removed by the government. This can mean many things depending on the government in question. For us, it means passing an amendment. You appear to believe this is a natural right, however. Natural rights are most closely related to human rights. Things like life, health, ect. Now, I will admit, there is some contention on the issue (is it a civil or natural), but that's how I see it. I am not saying that it isn't a right, nor am I saying it shouldn't be, merely that it is a civil right, not a natural right.
And, seriously, not need to be rude. You can disagree without insulting me.
Also, you appear to have be confused me with another poster? I haven't really been involved with this discussion very much.
83501
Post by: Nostromodamus
I apologise, just been dealing with a lot lately and this thread is stressng me out.
Time for a break I think.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
All good.
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
Frazzled wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote: Alex C wrote:
The second amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, we already have it. What it is supposed to do is stop the government from taking the right away from us.
Yeah, I gotta disagree with you on that point. Ownership of weaponry is not a natural right, it is a civil right, and has been treated as such. It is a right given to you by the government, just like speech, religion, ect. That's why it's called a civil right. To argue that you are somehow naturally entitled to weaponry is beyond ridiculous.
You have a severely incorrect view of rights as viewed under the Constitution. Government gives us NOTHING. We only permit the government to have certain powers.
read the Constitution itself. Its right there.
Agreed, the rights in the Constitution are powers of the people that the government has no authority to alter with out consent of the people. The Constitution grants powers to the government not privileges to the people under the government's discretion.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Frazzled wrote:
Fortunately the third way, the American way, is to ban neither and let the ideas fight it out.
I'm all for scheduling cage matches between KKK members and Pomona Crips though.
The confederate flag wasn't banned.
It was removed from city hall by republicans through a majority vote.
If retailers don't want to sell it, that's just the free market at work, not a ban.
The confederate flag was raised over all the city halls in the south in protest to "civil rights" when the new klan adopted it as it's symbol, it's the chosen flag of racists in america and in germany. it's history is easily googleable NuggzTheNinja.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Says the Canadian.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Now, will you answer the question; What common sense gun control measures would you like to see implemented that would have prevented this attack?
And before I forget your claim that there has been 355 mass shootings is wholly incorrect, and comes from Shooting Tracker. As mentioned previously their definition is wholly at odds with any accepted definition, and includes incidents were children were playing with BB guns and hit each other. The people behind Shooting Tracker would have you believe that kids playing with pellet guns is as serious an incident as Sandy Hook. Even Mother Jones walked back this claim after they published it, saying the total in 2015 was 4, or 1.12% of the actual incidents claimed.
I answered that in this thread already, right before we got warned by a mod to stop discussing that.
you're really going to claim there were only 4 mass shootings this year? really? there was 4 in the US just this week. the definition is quite clear shooting 3 or more people. and the 355 number was 4 or more people. Automatically Appended Next Post:
so you have proof of this ban then?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Not the ban, your statements about its history and use.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Didn't we do a thread on this? are we really going to go this far off topic?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/why-is-the-flag-still-there/396431/
This history is not seriously contested. It has been documented in scholarly books, articles, and official reports. The flag was created by an army raised to kill in defense of slavery, revived by a movement that killed in defense of segregation, and now flaunted by a man who killed nine innocents in defense of white supremacy.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-the-confederate-flag-flown-outside-the-us-2015-6
In Germany, the Confederate flag is not void of political context. European skinheads and neo-Nazi groups have adopted the Confederate flag and variations of it because of its historical context as a symbol of racism and white supremacy.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
People still have the right to use the flag. I think it can also be flown by the government in areas where it is historically significant.
Certainly going the way Europe has gone where most similar symbols have been criminalized is wrong.
|
|
